SHANTI GURU INFRA,TRICHY vs. ITO, WARD-2(1),, TRICHY
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the 49-day delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay before him and hear the appeal on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT after the CIT(A) dismissed their appeal due to a 201-day delay in filing. The assessee's original appeal to the CIT(A) was against an assessment under Section 143(3)/147 of the Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable, and if so, whether the appeal should be heard on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ (SMC
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI
(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2016-2017) Shanti Guru Infra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer 53, Chinna Kamala Street, Ward 2(1) Trichy 620 008. Trichy [PAN: ACVFS 2517D] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. M. Aswathy, JCIT. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 23.08.2024 for Assessment Year 2016-17.
The registry has noted delay of 49 days in filing the appeal. Considering the period of delay and reasons stated in the condonation petition which is supported by an affidavit of the assessee, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee instituted appeal before the ld.CIT(A) against the income assessed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act on account of Stamp paper purchased for Rs.2,25,000/-. However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of rejection of petition for condonation of delay. There was 201 days delay in filing the appeal. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.
Before the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not properly considered the reasons given in the Form 35. The ld.DR relied upon the order of the ld.CIT(A) and pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal.
Though we some extent concur with the submissions of Ld.DR Ms. M. Awasthy, JCIT however, keeping in mind the reasons given, we are of the view that the delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) is sufficient cause. Hence, we direct the ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing appeal and hear the appeal on merits. Needless to say, that the ld.CIT(A) will follow the principle of natural justice and grant opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for hearing on merits subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same will be furnished by the Assessee before Ld.CIT(A) whose shall proceed for hearing the appeal on merits after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case with all evidence, confirmations and documents, if any, forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld.CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the appeal proceedings on merits as per law.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th day of February, 2025 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Siddharth Barai (Prop- Siddharth Design Studio) vs. The Superintendent CGST And Central Excise, Balangir RangeOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Shashibhusan Moharana vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, DhenkanalOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Sanjeevini Health Care vs. M/S.Vijayalakshmi And AssociatesKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
- Trilok Chandra vs. State Tax OfficerUttarakhand · 4 Nov 2026
- Basant Ballabh Punetha vs. State Of UttarakhandUttarakhand · 4 Nov 2026